MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158742424 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-200

Comparison of distance measures in spatial analytical modeling for health service planning

2009· article· en· W2158742424 on OpenAlexafffund
Rizwan Shahid, Stefania Bertazzon, Merril L. Knudtson, William A. Ghali

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEli Lilly CanadaFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleW. Garfield Weston FoundationBoston Scientific CorporationGovernment of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMinkowski distanceMetric (unit)Euclidean distanceDistance measuresMinkowski spaceComputer scienceStatisticsData miningHealth geographyDistance decayMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceGeographyPublic healthGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several methodological approaches have been used to estimate distance in health service research. In this study, focusing on cardiac catheterization services, Euclidean, Manhattan, and the less widely known Minkowski distance metrics are used to estimate distances from patient residence to hospital. Distance metrics typically produce less accurate estimates than actual measurements, but each metric provides a single model of travel over a given network. Therefore, distance metrics, unlike actual measurements, can be directly used in spatial analytical modeling. Euclidean distance is most often used, but unlikely the most appropriate metric. Minkowski distance is a more promising method. Distances estimated with each metric are contrasted with road distance and travel time measurements, and an optimized Minkowski distance is implemented in spatial analytical modeling. METHODS: Road distance and travel time are calculated from the postal code of residence of each patient undergoing cardiac catheterization to the pertinent hospital. The Minkowski metric is optimized, to approximate travel time and road distance, respectively. Distance estimates and distance measurements are then compared using descriptive statistics and visual mapping methods. The optimized Minkowski metric is implemented, via the spatial weight matrix, in a spatial regression model identifying socio-economic factors significantly associated with cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: The Minkowski coefficient that best approximates road distance is 1.54; 1.31 best approximates travel time. The latter is also a good predictor of road distance, thus providing the best single model of travel from patient's residence to hospital. The Euclidean metric and the optimal Minkowski metric are alternatively implemented in the regression model, and the results compared. The Minkowski method produces more reliable results than the traditional Euclidean metric. CONCLUSION: Road distance and travel time measurements are the most accurate estimates, but cannot be directly implemented in spatial analytical modeling. Euclidean distance tends to underestimate road distance and travel time; Manhattan distance tends to overestimate both. The optimized Minkowski distance partially overcomes their shortcomings; it provides a single model of travel over the network. The method is flexible, suitable for analytical modeling, and more accurate than the traditional metrics; its use ultimately increases the reliability of spatial analytical models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.316
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations176
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207